• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

of 9.9s and such

Started by CBT,

345 posts in this topic

BeachBum

BeachBum

Posted
Posted
"Having" a chance at 9.9 is completely different than saying that's a 9.9 or 10.0 - I pulled a book from stacks on a table two years ago at Boston and said "hello puppet" - showed it to a couple of people and declared it was gonna be a "10.0"

 

You know what - it came back 10.0

 

Graders are not going to agree with you all the time but I can spot them - When I do a pre-screen of anything I look for the 9.9s and 10.0s candidates first, then settle for the 9.8s.

 

 

I understand Dre but how many times have you said that it will be 9.9/10.0 and wasn't? I am always confused as to why you are so reluctant to credit your hard work but enthusiastically credit some grading skill.

 

Graders not agreeing by definition means you can't spot a CGC 9.9/10.0. You may be able to spot a Mint book according to your criteria but there are no guarantees the graders will agree which makes it a CGC 9.9/10.0.

 

My response is directed at your comment:

 

No, he can't. Nobody can. CGC themselves can't do it.

 

Keep in mind that any claims to be able to spot a 9.9/10.0 is making a false claim. Dre has a great eye and experience.

 

I can spot 9.9s and 10.0s - It's not a false claim. Don't speak to the skills of myself and others and pretend that it's a guessing game. It belittles the whole grading process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nikocb

nikocb

Posted
Posted
"Having" a chance at 9.9 is completely different than saying that's a 9.9 or 10.0 - I pulled a book from stacks on a table two years ago at Boston and said "hello puppet" - showed it to a couple of people and declared it was gonna be a "10.0"

 

You know what - it came back 10.0

 

Graders are not going to agree with you all the time but I can spot them - When I do a pre-screen of anything I look for the 9.9s and 10.0s candidates first, then settle for the 9.8s.

 

BTW It is very rare for me to have 9.6 SS on any submission, even the big cons (all NYCC sig subs 9.8 or higher). When it happens I know it's borderline or the artist was a little rough while signing and I'm aware of it as well.

 

So tell us what it is you see different on a 9.9/10 vs a 9.8. Enlighten us, oh great one!

 

 

 

squint.gif:censored:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
N/A

N/A

Posted
Posted
"Having" a chance at 9.9 is completely different than saying that's a 9.9 or 10.0 - I pulled a book from stacks on a table two years ago at Boston and said "hello puppet" - showed it to a couple of people and declared it was gonna be a "10.0"

 

You know what - it came back 10.0

 

Graders are not going to agree with you all the time but I can spot them - When I do a pre-screen of anything I look for the 9.9s and 10.0s candidates first, then settle for the 9.8s.

 

 

I understand Dre but how many times have you said that it will be 9.9/10.0 and wasn't? I am always confused as to why you are so reluctant to credit your hard work but enthusiastically credit some grading skill.

 

Graders not agreeing by definition means you can't spot a CGC 9.9/10.0. You may be able to spot a Mint book according to your criteria but there are no guarantees the graders will agree which makes it a CGC 9.9/10.0.

 

My response is directed at your comment:

 

No, he can't. Nobody can. CGC themselves can't do it.

 

Keep in mind that any claims to be able to spot a 9.9/10.0 is making a false claim. Dre has a great eye and experience.

 

I can spot 9.9s and 10.0s - It's not a false claim. Don't speak to the skills of myself and others and pretend that it's a guessing game. It belittles the whole grading process.

 

Then I'm belittling it. Once your 9.9/10.0 claims reach more than 25% you let me know.

 

Yes everyone, it's some mythical grading skill. Good luck with that. :eyeroll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BeachBum

BeachBum

Posted
Posted
"Having" a chance at 9.9 is completely different than saying that's a 9.9 or 10.0 - I pulled a book from stacks on a table two years ago at Boston and said "hello puppet" - showed it to a couple of people and declared it was gonna be a "10.0"

 

You know what - it came back 10.0

 

Graders are not going to agree with you all the time but I can spot them - When I do a pre-screen of anything I look for the 9.9s and 10.0s candidates first, then settle for the 9.8s.

 

 

I understand Dre but how many times have you said that it will be 9.9/10.0 and wasn't? I am always confused as to why you are so reluctant to credit your hard work but enthusiastically credit some grading skill.

 

Graders not agreeing by definition means you can't spot a CGC 9.9/10.0. You may be able to spot a Mint book according to your criteria but there are no guarantees the graders will agree which makes it a CGC 9.9/10.0.

 

My response is directed at your comment:

 

No, he can't. Nobody can. CGC themselves can't do it.

 

Keep in mind that any claims to be able to spot a 9.9/10.0 is making a false claim. Dre has a great eye and experience.

 

I can spot 9.9s and 10.0s - It's not a false claim. Don't speak to the skills of myself and others and pretend that it's a guessing game. It belittles the whole grading process.

 

Then I'm belittling it. Once your 9.9/10.0 claims reach more than 25% you let me know.

 

Yes everyone, it's some mythical grading skill. Good luck with that. :eyeroll:

 

If the 9.9 or 10.0 books are not in the stacks in such a percentage then how can you pull them to a 25% ratio. That's just crazy talk. The ability to spot the 9.9s and 10.0s does not relate to the overall 9.8/9.9/10.0 percentages.

 

With Marvels and even now some DCs it's a fight just to pull the 9.8s from the stacks so when you spot the 9.9 and 10.0 candidates in that mess it will bring a smile.

 

C'mon Jeff - you know better than this all. You think the graders are sitting in the grading room declaring - "Hey guys, let's make this a 9.9 and this one a 10.0 today!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
N/A

N/A

Posted
Posted

Call a 9.9/10.0 more than 25%. Not have an overall submission rate more than 25% 9.9/10.0.

 

Dre, if it is so clearly defined and such a science then why doesn't CGC prescreen 9.9/10.0?

 

 

You are claiming that grading is not subjective. I am saying that it most certainly is. This is what we are disagreeing on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BeachBum

BeachBum

Posted
Posted
"Having" a chance at 9.9 is completely different than saying that's a 9.9 or 10.0 - I pulled a book from stacks on a table two years ago at Boston and said "hello puppet" - showed it to a couple of people and declared it was gonna be a "10.0"

 

You know what - it came back 10.0

 

Graders are not going to agree with you all the time but I can spot them - When I do a pre-screen of anything I look for the 9.9s and 10.0s candidates first, then settle for the 9.8s.

 

BTW It is very rare for me to have 9.6 SS on any submission, even the big cons (all NYCC sig subs 9.8 or higher). When it happens I know it's borderline or the artist was a little rough while signing and I'm aware of it as well.

 

So tell us what it is you see different on a 9.9/10 vs a 9.8. Enlighten us, oh great one!

 

 

 

squint.gif:censored:

 

Here are some 10.0s

 

IMG_5820_zps89e7d512.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
N/A

N/A

Posted
Posted
"Having" a chance at 9.9 is completely different than saying that's a 9.9 or 10.0 - I pulled a book from stacks on a table two years ago at Boston and said "hello puppet" - showed it to a couple of people and declared it was gonna be a "10.0"

 

You know what - it came back 10.0

 

Graders are not going to agree with you all the time but I can spot them - When I do a pre-screen of anything I look for the 9.9s and 10.0s candidates first, then settle for the 9.8s.

 

 

I understand Dre but how many times have you said that it will be 9.9/10.0 and wasn't? I am always confused as to why you are so reluctant to credit your hard work but enthusiastically credit some grading skill.

 

Graders not agreeing by definition means you can't spot a CGC 9.9/10.0. You may be able to spot a Mint book according to your criteria but there are no guarantees the graders will agree which makes it a CGC 9.9/10.0.

 

My response is directed at your comment:

 

No, he can't. Nobody can. CGC themselves can't do it.

 

Keep in mind that any claims to be able to spot a 9.9/10.0 is making a false claim. Dre has a great eye and experience.

 

I can spot 9.9s and 10.0s - It's not a false claim. Don't speak to the skills of myself and others and pretend that it's a guessing game. It belittles the whole grading process.

 

Then I'm belittling it. Once your 9.9/10.0 claims reach more than 25% you let me know.

 

Yes everyone, it's some mythical grading skill. Good luck with that. :eyeroll:

 

If the 9.9 or 10.0 books are not in the stacks in such a percentage then how can you pull them to a 25% ratio. That's just crazy talk. The ability to spot the 9.9s and 10.0s does not relate to the overall 9.8/9.9/10.0 percentages.

 

With Marvels and even now some DCs it's a fight just to pull the 9.8s from the stacks so when you spot the 9.9 and 10.0 candidates in that mess it will bring a smile.

 

C'mon Jeff - you know better than this all. You think the graders are sitting in the grading room declaring - "Hey guys, let's make this a 9.9 and this one a 10.0 today!"

 

Graders are stating an opinion, not a fact. If it were fact then they would always agree. (thumbs u

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BeachBum

BeachBum

Posted
Posted
Call a 9.9/10.0 more than 25%. Not have an overall submission rate more than 25% 9.9/10.0.

 

Dre, if it is so clearly defined and such a science then why doesn't CGC prescreen 9.9/10.0?

 

 

You are claiming that grading is not subjective. I am saying that it most certainly is. This is what we are disagreeing on.

 

If there is no skill involved then why tell the OP to "practice"?

 

To the OP. just practice. You can increase your odds but nothing else. (thumbs u

 

(shrug)

 

Why do you even bother grading books at all Jeff? It seems to me you think the whole grading process is a crapshoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
N/A

N/A

Posted
Posted
Call a 9.9/10.0 more than 25%. Not have an overall submission rate more than 25% 9.9/10.0.

 

Dre, if it is so clearly defined and such a science then why doesn't CGC prescreen 9.9/10.0?

 

 

You are claiming that grading is not subjective. I am saying that it most certainly is. This is what we are disagreeing on.

 

If there is no skill involved then why tell the OP to "practice"?

 

To the OP. just practice. You can increase your odds but nothing else. (thumbs u

 

(shrug)

 

Why do you even bother grading books at all Jeff? It seems to me you think the whole grading process is a crapshoot.

 

9.9/10.0's ARE a crapshoot. To some extent so are 9.8's. It's the nature of the best Dre. I believe this is year 5 of our debate.

 

Why practice? Seriously? To improve your chances your chances of getting 9.9/10.0's. For anyone who is completely useless at grading you will not get a 9.9/10.0 with no cover. ;)

 

You can refine your skill to increase your chances of higher grades. There is not set formula for submitting 9.9/10.0's. The more books you look at and submit or books you crack and examine the better your chances.

 

There is nobody with 100% prescreen rate on 9.8's so how can anyone claim they can do it for 9.9/10.0's?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
N/A

N/A

Posted
Posted
I'm stepping away from this nonsense. I gotta go back to shipping all these 9.9s and 10.0s I seem to pull randomly.

 

Again? lol

 

So if I post my 9.9/10.0's submission does that mean I have the skill? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
N/A

N/A

Posted
Posted

This always sounds like a good bet to me. Anyone who thinks they have the skill we'll meet at a con, you pick 30 9.9/10.0's and submit them under my account. I'll pay $100 per 9.9/10.0 and the skill guy pays me $100 per every 9.8.

 

Any takers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CBT

CBT

Posted
  • Author
Posted

hi guys, I've been busy with work so only got back to this thread now. For the record and anyone who might not know, Jeff and DRE are two guys I buy books from, have much respect for.

 

I know threads on 9.9 usually tend to get firey, and I definitely don't want to start arguments. As far as my grading skills go, I think I am pretty good/confident in my ability to identify books which WONT be 9.9+.

 

I have a handful of books I havent subbed, which I think have a chance of being 9.9s, very clean copies mostly for my personal collection. I am trying to decide if should press sub, or natural sub them. I have no doubt they will be 9.8s sent as is....

 

To Jeff and DRE, if maybe I can ask my question another way. If either of you had really clean books for your own collection, would you ever considering pressing them, or just sub them natural?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Flatliner1313

Flatliner1313

Posted
Posted
This always sounds like a good bet to me. Anyone who thinks they have the skill we'll meet at a con, you pick 30 9.9/10.0's and submit them under my account. I'll pay $100 per 9.9/10.0 and the skill guy pays me $100 per every 9.8.

 

Any takers?

 

And there is the flaw in your argument.

Do you think he's a wizard and he can just point at 30 books and make them 10s? I'm sure there are stacks he goes through, and there are zero tens.

 

His grading prowess does not make them 10s. It just allows him to find ones that have a great chance at being 10s.

 

I've seen him post more 9.9s and 10.0s than possbily the entire Modern Sales forum combined. I'd value his opinion highest in this conversation, because he's got excellent results to back it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
N/A

N/A

Posted
Posted

Increasing chances and calling a 9.9/10.0 is two totally different thing. I am not saying he has to find them at any particular show. I am after a nice sample size instead of a one-off.

 

"His grading prowess does not make them 10s. It just allows him to find ones that have a great chance at being 10s. " I believe you just agreed with me. (thumbs u

Link to comment
Share on other sites
N/A

N/A

Posted
Posted
hi guys, I've been busy with work so only got back to this thread now. For the record and anyone who might not know, Jeff and DRE are two guys I buy books from, have much respect for.

 

I know threads on 9.9 usually tend to get firey, and I definitely don't want to start arguments. As far as my grading skills go, I think I am pretty good/confident in my ability to identify books which WONT be 9.9+.

 

I have a handful of books I havent subbed, which I think have a chance of being 9.9s, very clean copies mostly for my personal collection. I am trying to decide if should press sub, or natural sub them. I have no doubt they will be 9.8s sent as is....

 

To Jeff and DRE, if maybe I can ask my question another way. If either of you had really clean books for your own collection, would you ever considering pressing them, or just sub them natural?

 

 

I would consider pressing them only because I don't believe that pressing reduces the grade but others may disagree.

 

In the beginning I would just sub naturally and now if I'm confident I skip pressing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CBT

CBT

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

I would consider pressing them only because I don't believe that pressing reduces the grade but others may disagree.

 

In the beginning I would just sub naturally and now if I'm confident I skip pressing.

 

thanks Jeff, these are the sort of opinions I was hoping to collect with the OP

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing